REVIEW 9 cited by
Gradual Disempowerment: Systemic Existential Risks from Incremental AI Development
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
This paper examines the systemic risks posed by incremental advancements in artificial intelligence, developing the concept of `gradual disempowerment', in contrast to the abrupt takeover scenarios commonly discussed in AI safety. We analyze how even incremental improvements in AI capabilities can undermine human influence over large-scale systems that society depends on, including the economy, culture, and nation-states. As AI increasingly replaces human labor and cognition in these domains, it can weaken both explicit human control mechanisms (like voting and consumer choice) and the implicit alignments with human interests that often arise from societal systems' reliance on human participation to function. Furthermore, to the extent that these systems incentivise outcomes that do not line up with human preferences, AIs may optimize for those outcomes more aggressively. These effects may be mutually reinforcing across different domains: economic power shapes cultural narratives and political decisions, while cultural shifts alter economic and political behavior. We argue that this dynamic could lead to an effectively irreversible loss of human influence over crucial societal systems, precipitating an existential catastrophe through the permanent disempowerment of humanity. This suggests the need for both technical research and governance approaches that specifically address the risk of incremental erosion of human influence across interconnected societal systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 9 Pith papers
-
HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistants
A new benchmark finds low to moderate human agency support in 20 LLM assistants across six dimensions.
-
A dataset of rated conceptual arguments
A multi-dimensional expert-rated dataset of 951 conceptual-argument critiques shows LLM judge performance tracks general model capability and is little helped by reasoning modes.
-
Levels of Autonomy for AI Agents
A user-role-based five-level framework for designing, certifying, and evaluating AI agent autonomy as a choice independent of agent capability.
-
Military AI Cyber Agents (MAICAs) Constitute a Global Threat to Critical Infrastructure
Autonomous AI cyber agents could credibly cause catastrophic damage to critical infrastructure by self-replicating and operating across global networks, according to this risk analysis.
-
Why do we need social singularity? A mechanism-based critique of gradual scenarios in AI existential-risk discourse
The paper separates technological singularity from a resulting 'social singularity' produced by anticipation, arguing gradual AI-risk scenarios underestimate social conflict and agency.
-
A Taxonomy of Omnicidal Futures Involving Artificial Intelligence
A conceptual taxonomy dividing AI-driven omnicide into unintentional, intentional-by-state, intentional-by-institution, intentional-by-individual, and intentional-by-AI scenarios.
-
Distributed and Decentralised Training: Technical Governance Challenges in a Shifting AI Landscape
A policy analysis distinguishing distributed and decentralised AI training, arguing decentralised training may erode detectability and shutdownability while compute controls remain relevant.
-
Embodied AI: Emerging Risks and Opportunities for Policy Action
A policy analysis arguing that embodied AI risks are real, under-covered by current US/EU/UK frameworks, and best handled through certification, benchmarks, clarified liability, and economic adaptation.
-
Collective Bargaining in the Information Economy Can Address AI-Driven Power Concentration
A policy agenda proposes collective bargaining by information producers as the principal fix for AI-driven market concentration and collapse of the information commons.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.